UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD Vs. RAMZAN BEGAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is filed by insurance company of the above appellant against the decree and judgment dated 16. 5. 2002 made in m. C. O. P. No. 302 of 1998 on the file of motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional district Judge-cum-Chief Judicial magistrate) at Sivagangai.

(2.) THE relevant facts for disposal of the appeal are that the respondent No. 1, ramzan Begam, the widow and respondent nos. 2 to 4, her children who are the legal heirs of the deceased Dr. Sheik Mohaideen filed a claim petition before the Motor accidents Claims Tribunal on account of death of Dr. Sheik Mohaideen, who died in a road accident on 18. 2. 1998 at about 9. 35 a. m. at Aathirampatti Vilakku-Sellur road. On that day, a lorry and TVS motor cycle collided and the rider of the motor cycle was killed. It was pleaded that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent and due to the said rashness and negligence the rider of the motor cycle was killed. The motor Accidents Claims Tribunal framed various issues. The respondent No. 5 is the driver of the lorry. The respondent No. 6 is the owner of the lorry and the said lorry was also insured with the insurance company, the above appellant. The driver and the owner of the vehicle did not contest the claim application and only the insurance company, the above appellant, contested the claim petition and raised number of objections and pleaded that the driver of the lorry was not negligent. After considering the materials and evidence on record, the Tribunal came to a conclusion that the driver of the lorry was rash and negligent and awarded the compensation of sum of rs. 17,69,452 with interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum from the date of application. Aggrieved by the award, the appeal has been filed by the insurance company, the above appellant.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant submitted that the Tribunal is wrong in holding that the accident was caused due to rashness and negligence of the lorry driver. Further, it was contended that the tribunal failed to appreciate the oral evidence and documentary evidence marked as exhibits and it ought to have seen that the burden of proof was on the claimant to establish that the deceased was not at fault by acceptable evidence. There was negligence on the part of the deceased and hence, the Tribunal ought to have apportioned the liability in the ratio of 60:40 between the driver of the lorry and the rider of the motor cycle. Further, he submitted that the Tribunal has erred in awarding huge and disproportionate amount by way of compensation. He also specifically submitted that there is no proof produced by the claimant that deceased doctor earned a sum of Rs. 3,000 by way of private practice and further submitted that the Tribunal is also wrong in awarding an additional sum of Rs. 2,00,000 for future increments and promotions.